Janus Democracy

Richard T. Longoria

Description

Combining political philosophy with a study of political behavior, Richard T. Longoria examines the contradictory nature of public opinion on policy issues. He argues that public opinion is often characterized by dialetheial paradoxes—when a statement and the contradiction of that statement are both held to be true. For example, a voter may express a desire for a balanced federal budget but also be against reducing entitlement programs, increasing taxes, or any other solution to achieve that goal. Longoria focuses on various social issues and domestic and foreign policies to explore these types of contradictory and incompatible preferences, arguing that they stem from the pragmatic nature of Americans' worldview, which prefers expediency over consistency. These inconsistencies are typically called "non-attitudes," but Longoria suggests it would be better to call them "bi-attitudes." When people have internalized the contradictions and believe in both¬ ideas even when the two are incompatible, they are being transconsistent rather than inconsistent. Transconsistency, Longoria concludes, leads to perpetual dissatisfaction with the political system because the government often attempts to satisfy the incompatible preferences of a two-faced public.
List of Tables
Preface
Acknowledgments

1. Introduction

2. The Theory of Dialetheial Paradoxes in Public Opinion

3. The Perils of Jamesian Pragmatism

4. Social Issues

5. Domestic Policy

6. Foreign Policy

7. Not Quite Paradoxes

8. Limitations of Survey Research

9. Janus Democracy

Bibliography
Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Épistémologie
• Pragmatism

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 01 novembre 2018
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438472423
• Langue: English

Extrait

JANUS DEMOCRACY
JANUS DEMOCRACY
TRANSCONSISTENCY AND THE GENERAL WILL
Richard T. Longoria
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2018 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Longoria, Richard T., 1977- author.
Title: Janus democracy : transconsistency and the general will / Richard T. Longoria.
Description: Albany : State University of New York Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018000360| ISBN 9781438472416 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781438472423 (e-book)
Subjects: LCSH: Political participation—United States. | Political psychology—United States. | Political culture—United States. | Public opinion—United States. | United States—Politics and government—Public opinion.
Classification: LCC JK1764 .L84 2018 | DDC 323/.0420973—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018000360
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
List of Tables
Preface
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
2. The Theory of Dialetheial Paradoxes in Public Opinion
3. The Perils of Jamesian Pragmatism
4. Social Issues
5. Domestic Policy
6. Foreign Policy
7. Not Quite Paradoxes
8. Limitations of Survey Research
9. Janus Democracy
Bibliography
Index
TABLES 1.1. Public Opinion Has Too Little Influence 3.1. Pragmatism in the Mass Public 4.1. Americans’ Views of Evolution 4.2. Religious Liberty 4.3. Same-Sex Marriage 4.4. Discrimination Is a Problem 4.5. Everyone Has an Equal Chance to Succeed 4.6. Americans Support Free Speech 4.7. Americans Want to Limit Offensive Speech 5.1. Most Americans Oppose the Affordable Care Act 5.2. Most Americans Don’t Want the ACA Repealed or the Subsidies Ended 5.3. Antipoverty Programs 5.4. Support for Oil Drilling and Lowering the Price of Fuel 5.5. Americans Support Environmental Regulations 5.6. Opposition to Government Regulations 5.7. Support for Government Regulations 5.8. Americans Support Budget Cuts 5.9. Americans Prefer Smaller Government 5.10. Americans Oppose Spending Cuts 5.11. Americans Oppose Budget Cuts 5.12. Americans Support Lower Taxes 5.13. Americans Support Higher Taxes 5.14. Most Americans Prefer a Combination of Spending Cuts and Tax Increases 5.15. Americans Oppose Campaign Limits 5.16. Americans Support Campaign Limits 6.1. Foreign Policy Values 6.2. Support for More Isolationist Policies 6.3. Genocide in Rwanda 6.4. Support for Contra Rebels in Nicaragua 6.5. Support for “Nuclear Freeze” with the Soviet Union 6.6. Islamic Militants 6.7. Ground Forces in Syria 6.8. Syrian Refugees 7.1. Amending the Constitution to Ban Same-Sex Marriage 7.2. Americans’ Views on Abortion 7.3. Genetic Engineering 7.4. Americans have General Support for/Positive View of the Iraq War 7.5. Americans have a General Opposition to/Negative View of the Iraq War 8.1. Americans’ Ideology 9.1. Americans Want the Government to Be Responsive to Public Opinion 9.2. Dissatisfaction with Democratic Political Institutions
PREFACE
A few years back I was having a conversation with an older gentleman—let’s call him Jim. The conversation turned to politics and Jim told me that he’s upset with our government’s out of control spending. He wanted the government to balance the budget. I told Jim that Medicare is the fastest-growing area of government expenditures and asked him if he would favor a reduction in Medicare spending. He strongly opposed the suggestion and said, “I don’t want rationing.” He wanted unlimited health care because he’d likely need it in the coming years. He volunteered a program that he wanted cut; he said, “We need to get rid of welfare.” I didn’t quibble. He proposed a reduction in spending that would move him closer to his stated policy preference. But I did tell him that eliminating welfare would not balance the budget on its own, we could eliminate all welfare spending and we would still be over budget. I asked him about military spending. That is an area that takes up a very large proportion of the federal budget. He said, “We need to increase spending on the military. We have to be prepared for the terrorists.” I told him increasing spending would not balance the budget. He replied, “We can use the money we saved from welfare.” All right. The savings from welfare gets transferred to the military budget. I informed Jim that we are now over budget by the same amount we started at. I asked, “Are there any other programs you want to see cut?” He replied, “I don’t know.” It was an honest answer.
The other way to balance the budget is with additional revenues. I asked him if he would support tax increases. He replied, “Absolutely not!” Knowing that most Americans are willing to support tax increases on the wealthy, I presented him that option. He said, “We shouldn’t punish the job creators.” I said, “Jim that doesn’t balance the budget.” He replied, “I don’t have the solutions. That’s why educated people like you should find them.” My conversation with Jim is important because he is fairly typical. He has policy preferences, but they are not well developed. When they are combined they don’t yield the results that Jim himself would prefer. How do our elected officials deal with voters like Jim? The answer is that our political elites and our political institutions do a very good job of reflecting the Will of the People.
Most Americans want the deficit reduced and the federal budget to be balanced. Our political leaders made an earnest effort to develop a plan to accomplish this objective. The Bowles-Simpson Commission was a bipartisan committee that created a plan to balance the federal budget. In some sense it is a simple problem. We have to reduce expenditures, increase revenues, or some combination of the two. The plan included cuts to national defense and Medicare, along with other reductions throughout the federal budget. In addition, the plan called for a variety of tax increases, including Social Security and gasoline tax increases. It called for reductions in tax deductions, like the mortgage interest deduction, aimed at increasing federal revenues. If fully implemented, the plan would balance the federal budget. This would seem like precisely the type of plan most Americans would support, except they don’t. The Bowles-Simpson plan was abandoned because Republicans opposed the tax increases and Democrats opposed the reductions to Medicare and other programs. Most Americans support the Republican Party’s commitment to lower taxes and a smaller government with fewer services. Most Americans also support the Democratic Party’s opposition to reductions in favored programs and their support for higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for the programs. It is a true reflection of the “general will” to propose a plan that most Americans would support and to abandon that same plan because most Americans would oppose it. Jim wants us to balance the budget, but he will oppose cuts to national defense and Medicare and will oppose any tax increases on principle. He would oppose the plan to balance the budget. In a very real sense Jim has exactly the government that he wants. The problem is he doesn’t like it. More than that, he’s angry about it. He’s tired of the gridlock. He’s frustrated by it. He wants solutions. When a solution is offered he gets angrier. Why is the government proposing solutions that he doesn’t like? He concludes that the government isn’t listening to him. When candidates like Donald Trump say, “Our leaders are stupid,” Jim agrees. We can feel sorry for Jim because of his lack of understanding, but we must also have some sympathy for our public officials. There isn’t a solution that the public will like. The public is angry because of our problems. They want the problems fixed and they oppose the solutions.
More recently, I presented my students with a short video clip of the recent military coup in Egypt. After the coup, violence erupted when the military called for a vote on the new constitution. I asked my class, should the United States intervene in Egypt’s internal political conflicts? One student immediately said, “No, it’s not our job.” The violence occurred because the Muslim Brotherhood, which had won the previous election by majority vote, was now banned from participating in the constitutional election because the military, with US support, declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. The Muslim Brotherhood claimed to be a legitimate political party and, more than that, democratically elected by popular vote. I asked the student, “So you want the Muslim Brotherhood to take over?” The student quickly replied, “No.” The student has an opinion about US intervention in foreign conflict—it’s not our problem. The student also has an opinion about terrorist groups—we need to stop them. Within a matter of seconds opposition to US intervention morphed into support for US intervention. In politics we call that a flip-flop. I inquired further, “So you now think it’s a good idea for the United States to intervene in Egypt?” The reply, “No.” He hadn’t abandoned the first opinion, he just added a second contradictory one. “There’re no good options,” he finished.
This sincere desire for two contradictory and incompatible goals is called transconsistency . I argue that this transconsistency stems from the pragmatic nature of Americans’ worldview. Pragmatism is antifoundational, it lacks a core set of absolute principles. This is true for most